WHEN
guerillas of the Marxist M-19 took hundreds of hostages in the Bogota
Palace of Justice last November, the Colombian army responded in a way the
guerillas had not expected. When the fighting ceased on November 7, the
guerillas lay dead. On November 10, the Colombian TFP—itself victim of
several terrorist attacks—published a manifesto in El Tiempo,
Bogota's major newspaper.

In the
manifesto, the TFP praised the energy with which the authorities had
reacted to the brutal and bloody guerilla aggression. The TFP also
expressed its sadness at the death of so many innocent people in the cross
fire or at the hands of the guerillas.

Regarding the fate of the 12 Supreme Court justices, the TFP declared:

"This
society [the TFP] cannot fail to express here its indignation and sorrow
over the cruel assassination of the hostages. This feeling is intensified
by the fact that the distinguished president of the Supreme Court of
Justice, the most illustrious of the victims, was known for his strong
support of a conciliatory attitude toward the subversives, for which,
however, the assassins showed not the least sign of gratitude."

The
manifesto recalled the amnesty granted the guerillas in 1982. Three years
ago, the TFP had warned in El Tiempo:

"The
TFP must voice its fear, which is surely shared by countless Colombians
that, as things now stand, granting freedom through an unconditional
amnesty to numerous active leaders of subversion would enable them to
proceed headlong in our urban centers with a type of violence much more
advanced than [the present] guerilla activity… The ef­fect of the amnesty
would not be the disarming of the guerillas, but rather the transfer of
agitation from the deep of the jungle to the heart of the major cities.''

The TFP
has repeatedly stressed that a radical antiguerilla reaction is
indispen­sable. Its November manifesto stated:

"A
superficial analysis of the events would create the impression that the
radical solution is always the most cruel. Such an impression is a sad
illusion of vacillating, indefinite minds, who think that every
categorical attitude is necessarily reprehensible. The recent tragic
episode illustrates the opposite to be true: Very often to radicalize is
to pre­vent; it is to avoid disaster and blood­shed; it is to protect
rights; it is to de­fend law and order. This is especially true when one
faces implacable adver­saries, such as the Colombian guerillas, who are
incited, armed and directed by Havana and Moscow.

"This
is the lesson given to our nation by the terrible attack on the Palace of
Justice. Let us not forget that cruelty often consists in being soft, and
not in being decisive, firm, and, in short, men of principles."